JUDGMENT : A. K. Goswami, J. Heard Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. K. H. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel, assisted by Ms. P. Barman, appearing for respondent No. 3; Mr. D. Saikia, learned Senior counsel, assisted by Mr. S. Hazarika, appearing for respondent No. 5; Mr. M. K. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel, assisted by Mr. N. Deka, appearing for respondent No. 4; Mr. K. Gogoi, learned Standing counsel, Education (Higher) Department, appearing for respondent No. 2 as well as Mr. A. Chamuah, learned Standing counsel, University Grants Commission (UGC), appearing for respondent No. 1. 2. By this intra-court appeal, the appellant has put to challenge the judgement and order dated 11.04.2019 passed in WP(C) 6374/2018, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed. 3. Essentially, the case revolves around fresh selection of the Vice-Chancellor of the Gauhati University. The term of the Vice-Chancellor had ended in the month of August, 2018 and it is submitted at the Bar that, presently, he has been asked by respondent No. 5, i.e., the Chancellor, to continue as i/c, Vice-Chancellor. 4. The appellant is a Professor in the Department of Economics, Gauhati University, and is an applicant for the post of Vice-Chancellor. The appellant had responded to the advertisement published in The Assam Tribune dated 10.07.2018, seeking nominations/applications for the post of Vice-Chancellor of the Gauhati University, by filing her application with all testimonials. 5. The Gauhati University was established under the Gauhati University Act, 1947 (for short, "the GU Act"), enacted by the State Legislature. Section 8.A.(1) of the GU Act provides the modalities for appointment of the Vice-Chancellor. It is pleaded in the writ petition that, in terms of Section 8A(1), the Chancellor had constituted an Advisory Board with 3 (three) Members. One Member, out of three Members, was elected by the Executive Council as required. He was so elected in the meetings of the Executive Council held on 31.03.2018 and 24.04.2018 and in such meetings of the Executive Council, the incumbent Vice-Chancellor had participated, which is not fair. The elected Member of the Executive Council, namely, respondent No. 4, is associated with the university as he is a Member of the Selection Committee constituted under Section 15A(1)(a) of the GU Act as also a Guest Lecturer in the Department of Environmental Science. The elected Member of the Executive Council, namely, respondent No. 4, is associated with the university as he is a Member of the Selection Committee constituted under Section 15A(1)(a) of the GU Act as also a Guest Lecturer in the Department of Environmental Science. Plea is taken that the UGC had framed a regulation, namely, University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as "Regulations, 2010"), and Clause 7.3.0 thereof, which deals with selection of Vice-Chancellors of Universities, prescribes a mode of selection which is different from the prescription as laid down in the GU Act. These aspects essentially form the core of the case presented by the writ petitioner. On the above background, prayer is made for (i) quashing of the Resolution No. R/EC-02/2018/35, adopted in the meetings dated 31.03.2018 and 24.04.2018, (ii) directing the Executive Council to elect a new Member to the Advisory Board for selection of a new Vice-Chancellor and (iii) declaring the Advisory Committee constituted for selection of a new Vice-Chancellor of the Gauhati University as unconstitutional. 6. Though in the writ petition reference is made to "Advisory Board", in the prayer portion same is referred to as "Advisory Committee" instead of "Advisory Board". 7. The questioned Resolution of the meetings held on 31.03.2018 and 24.04.2018 was adopted against item No. 31. The learned Single Judge had recorded a finding at paragraph 15 that the Vice-Chancellor had not participated in the deliberations of the Executive Council in the aforesaid meetings for nomination of a Member to the Advisory Board for selection of a new Vice- Chancellor. The learned Single Judge also adverted to the aspect as to whether the Vice-Chancellor could have remained in the aforesaid meetings of the Executive Council and, in that context, had placed reliance on Section 8B(3), 12(1), 12(2) and 13(f) of the GU Act to hold that in view of the statutory scheme, it is a necessity that the Vice-Chancellor in office at the relevant point of time has to convene and conduct meetings of the Executive Council of the university and, without his presence, the Executive Council could neither be convened nor be held. Thus, in essence, the learned Single Judge had opined that in the fact situation, the doctrine of necessity would come into play. Thus, in essence, the learned Single Judge had opined that in the fact situation, the doctrine of necessity would come into play. The learned Single Judge, on the issue of applicability or otherwise of the Regulations, 2010, had concluded that the Gauhati University and the State Government had not adopted the Regulations, 2010 and, as such, the Regulations, 2010 are recommendatory and directory. Consequently, it was held that non-compliance of the provision of Clause 7.3.0 of the Regulations, 2010 will not vitiate the process of selection of Vice-Chancellor. The contention advanced that the respondent No. 4 having been appointed to the Advisory Board on the basis of the resolution adopted in the meetings held on 31.03.2018 and 24.04.2018, where the incumbent Vice-Chancellor was present, he would be favourably disposed towards the Vice-Chancellor, was rejected holding the same to be slightly far-fetched. While recording the above findings, the contention advanced by the petitioner that eligibility criteria laid down in the advertisement in terms of the Regulations, 2010 itself is testimony to the fact that the said Regulations, 2010 had been adopted by the Gauhati University was negated by the learned Single Judge by holding that it is always open to the appointing authority to lay down requisite conditions of eligibility or qualifications in the manner as it chooses, if necessary, by importing such eligibility criteria/qualifications from another source. Though Clause 7.3.0 was held to be recommendatory and directory, the same being not adopted by the State Government or the Gauhati University, nonetheless, the learned Single Judge delved into the Regulations, 2010 to find out the meaning of the expression "connected with the University in any manner" as finding place therein. As the role of the Selection Committee, in terms of Section 15A(1)(a) was recommendatory in nature, it was held that respondent No. 4 would not come within the ambit of the expression "connected with the University in any manner". Accordingly, it was opined that no case was made out for interference to interdict the process and, resultantly, the writ petition was dismissed. 8. Mr. Accordingly, it was opined that no case was made out for interference to interdict the process and, resultantly, the writ petition was dismissed. 8. Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge laid more emphasis on as to whether the Regulations, 2010 were adopted by the Gauhati University though the same has no relevance while, in passing, had referred to whether or not the State Government had adopted the Regulations, 2010, which may have some bearing. Mr. Choudhury has submitted that the finding of the learned Single Judge that the Regulations, 2010 were not adopted by the State Government or by the Gauhati University is contrary to the materials on record and if it is held that the Regulations, 2010 had been adopted by the State, then there is no escape from the conclusion that Clause 7.3.0 of the Regulations, 2010 would be mandatorily applicable in the process of selection of the Vice-Chancellor and, on the admitted facts, when the panel for selection of Vice-Chancellor for the purpose of recommendation to the Chancellor was not in terms of Clause 7.3.0 but in terms of Section 8A(1) of the Act, the process undertaken cannot receive judicial imprimatur. In order to substantiate his contention that the Regulations, 2010 had been adopted by the State Government, the learned senior counsel has drawn the attention of the court to the affidavit of respondent No. 2, filed on behalf of the State Government, with particular emphasis on Annexure-1 thereto. It is submitted by him that if Clause 7.3.0 is held to be applicable, it may not be necessary to go into the other issues raised in the writ petition. He, however, submits that it would be appropriate for him to also address on the other issues and has advanced submissions accordingly. He further submits that if Clause 7.3.0 is held to be applicable, the procedure adopted will fall foul on the grounds, namely, improper constitution of Selection Committee as well as on the ground that respondent No. 4 could not, under any circumstances, have been part of the Selection Committee, he being intrinsically connected with the affairs of the Gauhati University. He further submits that if Clause 7.3.0 is held to be applicable, the procedure adopted will fall foul on the grounds, namely, improper constitution of Selection Committee as well as on the ground that respondent No. 4 could not, under any circumstances, have been part of the Selection Committee, he being intrinsically connected with the affairs of the Gauhati University. The manner as to how the recommendation is to be made is conspicuous by its absence in the GU Act while there are positive guidelines in Clause 7.3.0 as to how the entire process has to be gone about thereby promoting transparency. He submits that not only the Vice-Chancellor had participated in the meetings held on 31.03.2018 and 24.04.2018 but also he had used his own e-mail ID for forwarding of names for the purpose of consideration of election of the Member to be nominated to the Advisory Board, which clearly demonstrates that there are serious anomalies in the process undertaken. It is also submitted by the learned senior counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge committed error in recording a finding that the incumbent Vice-Chancellor had recused himself from the meetings held on 31.03.2018 and 24.04.2018 and, as he had taken part in the selection process of respondent No. 4, there is reasonable apprehension of bias that in the eventual selection process, respondent No. 4 will take a partisan stand. 9. It is submitted by Mr. K. N. Choudhury that it is not that under the scheme of the GU Act it is not possible to convene and conduct a meeting of the Executive Council without the intervention/participation of the Vice-Chancellor and, therefore, the doctrine of necessity is not attracted in the facts of the instant case. Learned senior counsel argues that it was not absolutely essential for the Vice-Chancellor to be present in such meetings of the Executive Council and the Chancellor could have taken recourse to appointing a temporary Vice-Chancellor for the purpose of selecting a nominee from the Gauhati University to the Advisory Board. Learned Senior counsel for the appellant has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Assistant Excise Commissioner and Others vs. Issac Peter and Others, (1994) 4 SCC 104 and Election Commission Of India and Another vs. Dr. Learned Senior counsel for the appellant has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Assistant Excise Commissioner and Others vs. Issac Peter and Others, (1994) 4 SCC 104 and Election Commission Of India and Another vs. Dr. Subramanian Swamy & Another, (1996) 4 SCC 104 to contend that the doctrine of necessity can be applied only in an extreme case. He has also cited the decision in the case of Hitendra Singh S/o Bhupendra Singh and Others vs. Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth and Others, (2014) 8 SCC 369 , to buttress his contention that any person engaged for recruiting or recommending for filling up of posts in the university would come within the meaning of the expression "connected with the university". Reliance is also placed in the case of Prof. Yashpal and Others vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others, (2005) 5 SCC 420. 10. Mr. D. Saikia, learned Senior counsel, before initiating his arguments, has drawn our attention to the order dated 03.05.2019 passed by this court in the instant appeal and submits that consideration of the selection of Vice-Chancellor from the panel suggested by the Advisory Board had been undertaken and the decision was kept in sealed cover in terms of the said order. He has produced the sealed cover before the court. He submits that the sealed cover may be opened by the court and if it is found that the incumbent Vice-Chancellor is not selected, then the issue relating to bias need not be adverted to by him during the course of his submissions. 11. Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel for the appellant, however, submits that the sealed envelope may not be opened by the court at the time of hearing of the appeal. 12. Since learned senior counsel for the appellant had reservation in opening of the sealed cover and looking into the contents therein, we deemed it appropriate not to open the sealed envelope. The sealed envelope was, accordingly, returned back to Mr. Saikia. 13. Mr. 12. Since learned senior counsel for the appellant had reservation in opening of the sealed cover and looking into the contents therein, we deemed it appropriate not to open the sealed envelope. The sealed envelope was, accordingly, returned back to Mr. Saikia. 13. Mr. Saikia has drawn the attention of the court to the prayers made in the writ petition and, on the basis thereof, he contends that the fact that the writ petitioner has prayed for electing a new Member to the Advisory Board for selection of a new Vice-Chancellor, manifestly makes it clear that reliance is placed only on the GU Act and, therefore, incidental reference to the Regulations, 2010 will have no bearing in the outcome of the case. Laying emphasis on the affidavit of respondent No. 2 and the Annexure-1 thereto, he contends that on the basis thereof it cannot be construed that the Regulations, 2010 and the Schemes framed thereunder had been adopted by the State Government. Mr. Saikia submits that, in any view of the matter, the letter at Annexure-1 of the affidavit filed by respondent No. 2 cannot bind the Government as the author of the said letter was the Director of Higher Education, who cannot and does not represent the State Government. It is submitted by him that the letter also does not refer to any decision having been taken by the State Government to adopt the Regulations, 2010. When the resolution of the Executive Council adopted in the meeting held on 23.09.2010, while referring to the Regulations, 2010, had resolved that appointment of Pro Vice-Chancellor and Vice-Chancellor shall be as per the provisions of the GU Act, it was incumbent on the part of the petitioner to have assailed the same and, in absence of any challenge to that effect, this court ought not to embark upon a journey to find out whether the constitution of the Committee, which was admittedly constituted as per the GU Act, was valid or not. Even if a plea is taken that such a resolution was not known to the petitioner, the same having been a part of the records for a considerable period of time before the hearing of the case had taken place, such a plea would become untenable as, in the meantime, appropriate amendments could have been made to mount challenge to the said resolution. There is not even a whisper in the writ petition with regard to adoption of the Regulations, 2010 and applicability of the same to the Gauhati University, though submissions have been advanced to that effect. Plea of bias was also not taken specifically in the writ petition. When indirectly a plea of bias or lack of fairness is raised in respect of the incumbent Vice-Chancellor on the touchstone of he being a participant in the meetings of the Executive Council held on 31.03.2018 and 24.04.2018, in which the respondent No. 4 was elected as a Member of the Advisory Committee, it was necessary and incumbent on the part of the petitioner to have arrayed him as a party respondent individually. But not only had he not been made a party by name, but also the Vice-Chancellor had not been made a party respondent in his official capacity and, therefore, according to him, the writ petition merits dismissal on this count. It is further submitted by him that the advertisement for the post of Vice-Chancellor was issued on 10.07.2018 and, as the process of selection of the new Vice-Chancellor was likely to take some time, in order not to create any stalemate, which might have led to a situation leading to continuance of the incumbent Vice-Chancellor on an extended tenure, the Vice-Chancellor had taken appropriate steps, in terms of Section 8B(1) of the GU Act, to convene meeting of the Executive Council well ahead of time and, therefore, it cannot be countenanced that the Vice-Chancellor had taken undue interest in the matter. Significantly, he had also not applied for the post but, as the events later on unfolded, two well known personalities of distinction had sent nominations recommending his name for consideration for the post of Vice-Chancellor. In such circumstances, it is submitted by him, it is far-fetched to contend that a deliberate attempt was made to gain undue advantage through the election of respondent No. 4 to the Advisory Board for inclusion of his name in the panel, which is to be forwarded to the Chancellor. When the Executive Council of the university consists of erudite, eminent and distinguished personalities and academicians, the contention that by his mere presence in the meetings dated 31.03.2018 and 24.04.2018, the Vice-Chancellor could have swayed the outcome of such meetings is wholly unrealistic, he contends. When the Executive Council of the university consists of erudite, eminent and distinguished personalities and academicians, the contention that by his mere presence in the meetings dated 31.03.2018 and 24.04.2018, the Vice-Chancellor could have swayed the outcome of such meetings is wholly unrealistic, he contends. That apart, it is the Chancellor who alone, ultimately, is to decide on the selection of the Vice-Chancellor and, therefore, the plea sought to be raised that there was an element of bias in the selection process deserves to be rejected outright. Mr. Saikia submits that the Vice-Chancellor has statutory obligations to convene and chair the meetings of the Executive Council and, therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in holding that the instant case was covered by the doctrine of necessity. In this context, he has submitted that the argument of Mr. Choudhury that the Chancellor could have appointed a temporary Vice-Chancellor is misconceived. Lastly, Mr. Saikia submits that there is also no challenge to Section 8A of the GU Act and, therefore, there is no merit in the instant appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed. He relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kalyani Mathivanan vs. K. V. Jeyaraj and Ors., (2015) 6 SCC 363 on the aspect of applicability or otherwise of Clause 7.3.0 of the Regulations, 2010. 14. Mr. K. H. Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the respondent No. 3 has submitted that the Regulations, 2010 had not been adopted either by the State Government or by the Gauhati University. The selection and appointment of the Vice-Chancellor on previous occasion, after coming into force of the Regulations, 2010, was made by following the same procedure as has been undertaken on this occasion and, during all these years, the UGC has not raised any objection whatsoever to the process of selection so undertaken. It is submitted by him that only 4.87% of total funds has been contributed by the UGC to the Gauhati University in the last five years, while the share of the State is about 87%. It is submitted by him that only 4.87% of total funds has been contributed by the UGC to the Gauhati University in the last five years, while the share of the State is about 87%. He has placed before the court the minutes of the meetings held on 31.03.2018 and 24.04.2018 and has drawn attention of the court to the resolution in respect of item No. 31 to contend that the same would demonstrate in unequivocal terms that the Vice-Chancellor had not participated in the matter of election of a Member to the Advisory Board. Responding to the issue raised by Mr. K. N. Choudhury regarding sending of emails by the Vice-Chancellor using his own e-mail ID, he submits that though a resolution had already been taken in the meeting to elect respondent No. 4 as a Member to the Advisory Board, since a Member of the Executive Council had opined as to whether some more nominees could be considered for the above purpose, it was decided by the Members that, if desired by any Member, suggestions/opinions may be given through the e-mail of the Chairman who, incidentally, happens to be the Vice-Chancellor, to be communicated to all Members for record. Placing before the court the e-mails received, it is submitted by him that 11 Members had responded to the Chairman, out of whom 10 had proposed the name of respondent No. 4, while another Member suggested 7 names. In the aforesaid situation, the resolution already adopted was forwarded to the Chancellor on 08.05.2018. He has adopted the arguments of Mr. Saikia in respect of non-applicability of the Regulations, 2010. 15. Mr. K. Gogoi, learned Standing counsel, Education (Higher) Department, has submitted that the Government of Assam in the Education Department had issued guidelines dated 21.02.2011 for constitution of Selection Committee as per the Regulations, 2010, in matters relating to direct recruitment, promotion as well as placement of Assistant Professor/Librarian in Selection Grade and Senior Grade scale of pay in provincialised colleges and also issued guidelines in reference to Clauses 3.0.0, 4.0.0, 4.4.0 and 4.41 of the Regulations, 2010. He has also submitted that Regulations, 2010 had not been adopted in totality but guidelines had been issued in tune with certain provisions of the Regulations, 2010, in respect of some positions and no such direction was issued in respect of faculty members or Vice-Chancellor or staff of the Gauhati University or any other university. He further submits that the Gauhati University is to follow the provisions and procedures laid down in the GU Act. It is submitted by him that no resolution was submitted by the Gauhati University to the State Government indicating that the Gauhati University wants to adopt the Regulations, 2010. 16. The UGC did not file any affidavit before the learned Single Judge when the writ petition was decided, but has filed an affidavit in the writ appellate stage. Placing reliance on the affidavit filed, Mr. Chamuah, learned Standing counsel, UGC, has submitted that the university concerned could not have by-passed or deviated from the Regulations, 2010. Placing reliance on paragraph 13 of the affidavit, it is contended by him that if the Gauhati University had not adopted the Regulations, 2010, then the UGC would take appropriate action. In essence, it is his contention that the procedure undertaken in selection of the Vice-Chancellor in the instant case is not in conformity with the Regulations, 2010. 17. Mr. M. K. Choudhury, learned senior counsel for respondent No. 4 submits that respondent No. 4 does not take any stand on the issue except to state that, according to his understanding, the Regulations, 2010, had not been adopted by the State Government. It is only because respondent No. 4 was elected as a nominee of the Executive Council to the Advisory Board, he had participated in the proceedings of the Advisory Board. 18. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials on record. 19. Incorporation of a university as a legislative head is a State subject under Entry 32 List 2. Accordingly, State Legislature had enacted the GU Act. The Governor of Assam, in terms of Section 8(1) is the Chancellor of University. Having regard to the controversy, at the very outset, it will be appropriate to take note of Section 8A(1) and 8B(1). Incorporation of a university as a legislative head is a State subject under Entry 32 List 2. Accordingly, State Legislature had enacted the GU Act. The Governor of Assam, in terms of Section 8(1) is the Chancellor of University. Having regard to the controversy, at the very outset, it will be appropriate to take note of Section 8A(1) and 8B(1). "VICE-CHANCELLOR: 8 A(1) The Vice-Chancellor shall be appointed by the Chancellor on the recommendation of an Advisory Board constituted by the Chancellor for the purpose and consisting of three members of whom one member shall be elected by the Executive Council, one member shall be nominated by the State Government and one member shall be nominated by the Chancellor. The Chancellor shall appoint one of them as Chairman of the Advisory Board. (2) The Advisory Board shall recommend a panel of names of three persons to the Chancellor who may appoint one of the persons recommended to be The Vice-Chancellor. If the Chancellor does not approve any of the persons recommended by the Advisory Board, he may call for a fresh recommendation. (3) The Vice-Chancellor shall be a whole time officer of the University who shall hold office for a period of five years and shall be eligible for re-appointment. (4) The Vice-Chancellor shall retire on the date he attains the age of 65 years. (5) The emoluments and other terms and conditions of service of the Vice-Chancellor shall be determined by the Chancellor. Provided that the salary of the Vice-Chancellor shall not be less than Rs. 2,500 per mensem including all allowances. (6) Whenever there is any temporary vacancy in the office of the Vice-Chancellor by reasons of leave, illness or resignation or other causes, the Chancellor shall make such other arrangement temporarily as he may think fit for exercising the powers and performing the duties of the Vice-Chancellor for such period as deemed necessary. The Vice-Chancellor shall determine the emoluments or allowances if any, payable to such a person temporarily appointed to exercise the powers and duties of the Vice-Chancellor. POWERS & DUTIES OF V.C.: 8 B.(1) The Vice-Chancellor shall be the Principal Executive and Academic Officer of the University and shall, in the absence of Chancellor, preside at meetings of the court and any Convocation of the University. POWERS & DUTIES OF V.C.: 8 B.(1) The Vice-Chancellor shall be the Principal Executive and Academic Officer of the University and shall, in the absence of Chancellor, preside at meetings of the court and any Convocation of the University. He shall be an ex-officio member and Chairman of Executive Council, the Standing Finance Committee, and of the Academic Council and shall be entitled to be present and to speak at any meeting of any authority or other body of the University. When present, he shall preside over all such meetings. 20. In terms of Section 12 of the GU Act, the Executive Council shall be the Executive Body of the university. The composition of Members is as follows: "EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS; (i) The Vice-Chancellor, (ii) The Rector, (iii) The Director of Public Instruction, Assam,(iv) The Director of Technical Education, (v) The Director of Health Service, Assam, (vi) The Director of Public Instruction, Manipur, (vii) The Director of Public Instruction, Arunachal Pradesh, (viii) The Chairman, Board of Secondary Education, Assam. OTHER MEMBERS: (ix) Two Principals of non-Government affiliated Degree Colleges to be elected form amongst themselves. (x) One Principal of Government affiliated Degree Colleges to be elected from amongst themselves.(xi) Two heads of Departments, other than Deans of Faculties of the University who are professors, to be chosen by the Vice-Chancellor by rotation according to seniority for a period of three years.(xii) One Dean of Faculty to be chosen by the Vice-Chancellor from the Dean of Faculties of the University for a period of three years, by rotation according to seniority.(xiii) Three members to be elected by the Court from amongst its members at its Annual General Meeting other than employees and students of the University or the affiliated Colleges. (xiv) Two teachers other than a Dean of Faculty of the University and the Principals of the affiliated colleges to be elected by the Academic Council from amongst such teachers who are its members.(xv) Three persons of whom at least one shall be a woman to be nominated by the Chancellor, and (xvi) Three persons be nominated by the Government. (xiv) Two teachers other than a Dean of Faculty of the University and the Principals of the affiliated colleges to be elected by the Academic Council from amongst such teachers who are its members.(xv) Three persons of whom at least one shall be a woman to be nominated by the Chancellor, and (xvi) Three persons be nominated by the Government. (2) Save as otherwise provided and except the ex-officio members, all other members shall hold office for a period of three years from the date of their election or nomination, as the case may be: Provided, however, that no person nominated or elected in his capacity as member of a particular body or as a holder of a particular appointment shall be member after he ceases to be a member of that body or holder of that appointment, as the case may be. (3) When a person ceases to be a member of the Executive Council, he shall cease to be member of any of the authorities of the University of which he may happen to be a member by virtue of his membership of the Executive Council." 21. Entry 66 List 1 is co-ordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions. A university, basically, is an institution for higher education and research. In Prof. Yashpal and Others (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that in spite of incorporation of universities as a legislative head in List 2, the whole gamut of the university which will include teaching, quality of education being imparted, curriculum, standard of examination and evaluation and also research activity being carried on will not come within the purview of the State Legislature in view of Entry 66 List 1. It is the responsibility of the Parliament to ensure that proper standards are maintained in institutions for higher education or research throughout the country and also uniformity in standards is maintained. 22. In order to achieve the aforesaid purpose as noted in Prof. Yashpal and Others (supra), the Parliament had enacted the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (for short, "UGC Act"). Section 26 provides that the UGC may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make regulations consistent with the UGC Act and the rules made there under in matters as indicated therein. In order to achieve the aforesaid purpose as noted in Prof. Yashpal and Others (supra), the Parliament had enacted the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (for short, "UGC Act"). Section 26 provides that the UGC may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make regulations consistent with the UGC Act and the rules made there under in matters as indicated therein. In Kalyani Mathivanan (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that as only when both the Houses of Parliament approve the regulations framed by UGC the same can be given effect to, UGC regulations, though a subordinate legislation, has binding effect on the universities to which it applies. 23. Section 2(f) of the UGC Act defines 'university' to mean a university established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act, and includes any such institution as may, in consultation with the university concerned, be recognized by the Commission in accordance with the regulations made in this behalf under the Act. 24. In exercise of powers conferred under Clauses (e) and (g) of Section 26 of the UGC Act, UGC had enacted Regulations, 2010 in supersession of UGC Regulations, 2000. It was published in the Gazette of India on 20.06.2010 and came into force with immediate effect. Relevant portion of the said Regulations, 2010, is as follows: "UGC REGULATIONS ON MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF TEACHERS AND OTHER ACADEMIC STAFF IN UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES AND MEASURES FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF STANDARDS IN HIGHER EDUCATION. "UGC REGULATIONS ON MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF TEACHERS AND OTHER ACADEMIC STAFF IN UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES AND MEASURES FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF STANDARDS IN HIGHER EDUCATION. University Grants Commission, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110002. "UGC REGULATIONS ON MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF TEACHERS AND OTHER ACADEMIC STAFF IN UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES AND MEASURES FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF STANDARDS IN HIGHER EDUCATION. University Grants Commission, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110002. (To be published in the Gazette of India Part III Sector 4) No.F.3-1/2009 30 June, 2010 In exercise of the powers conferred under clause (e) and (g) of sub-section (1) of Section 26 of University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (3 of 1956), and in pursuance of the MHRD O.M.No.F.23-7/2008-IFD dated 23rd October, 2008, read with Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure) O.M.No.F.1- 1/2008-IC dated 30th August, 2008, and in terms of the MHRD Notification No.1-32/2006-U.II/U.I(1) issued on 31st December, 2008 and in supersession of the University Grants Commission (minimum qualifications required for the appointment and career advancement of teachers in Universities and Institutions affiliated to it) Regulations, 2000, issued by University Grants Commission vide Regulation No. F.3-1/2000 (PS) dated 4th April, 2000, together with all amendments made therein from time to time, the University Grants Commission hereby frames the following Regulations, namely:- 1. Short title, application and commencement: 1.1. These Regulations may be called the University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and other Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2010. 1.2. They shall apply to every university established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, Provincial Act or a State Act, every institution including a constituent or an affiliated college recognized by the Commission, in consultation with the university concerned under Clause (f) of Section 2 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 and every institution deemed to be a university under Section 3 of the said Act. 1.3. They shall come into force with immediate effect. *** *** *** *** *** *** 2.*** *** *** 3. Consequences of failure of the Universities to comply with the recommendations of the Commission, as provision of Section 14 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956. 1.3. They shall come into force with immediate effect. *** *** *** *** *** *** 2.*** *** *** 3. Consequences of failure of the Universities to comply with the recommendations of the Commission, as provision of Section 14 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956. - If any University grants affiliation in respect of any course of study to any college referred to in sub-section(5) of Section 12-A in contravention of the provisions of the sub-section, or fails within a reasonable time to comply with any recommendations made by the Commission under Section 12 or Section 13, or contravenes the provisions of any rule made under clause (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 25 or of any regulations made under clause (e) or clause (f) or clause (g) of Sub-section (1) of Section 26, the Commission after taking into consideration the cause, if any, shown by the University for such failure or contravention, may withhold from the university the grants proposed to be made out of the fund of the Commission." 25. There is an Annexure to the Regulations, 2010, prescribing the minimum qualifications for appointment and other service conditions of university and college teachers, librarians, Directors of Physical Education and Sports for maintenance of standards in higher education and revision of pay scales. It will be appropriate to extract the following: "2.0.0. Pay Scales, Pay fixation formula and age of superannuation, etc. 2.1.0. The revised scales of pay and other service conditions including age of superannuation in central universities and other institutions maintained and/or funded by the University Grants Commission (UGC), shall be strictly in accordance with the decision of the Central Government, Ministry of Human Resource Development (Department of Education), as contained in Appendix-I. 2.3.1. The revised scales of pay and age of superannuation as provided in Clause 2.1.0 above, may also be extended to Universities, institutions coming under the purview of the State Legislature and maintained by the State Governments, subject to the implementation of the scheme as a composite one in adherence of the terms and conditions laid down in the MHRD notifications provided as Appendix I and in the MHRD letter No.F.1- 7/2010-U II dated 11 May, 2010 with all conditions specified by the UGC in the Regulations and other Guidelines. 7.0.0. Selection of Pro-Vice-Chancellor/Vice-Chancellor of universities - 7.1.0. 7.0.0. Selection of Pro-Vice-Chancellor/Vice-Chancellor of universities - 7.1.0. Pro-Vice-Chancellor: The Pro-Vice-Chancellor may be a whole time Professor of the University and shall be appointed by the Executive Council on the recommendation of Vice- Chancellor. 7.2.0. The Pro-Vice-Chancellor shall hold office for a period which is co- terminus with that of Vice-Chancellor. However, it shall be the prerogative of the Vice-Chancellor to recommend a new Pro-Vice-Chancellor to the Executive Council, during his tenure. These Regulations, for selection of Pro- Vice- Chancellor shall be adopted by the concerned University through amendment of their Act/Statute. 7.3.0. Vice-Chancellor: (i) Persons of the highest level of competence, integrity, morals and institutional commitment are to be appointed as Vice-Chancellors. The Vice-Chancellor to be appointed should be a distinguished academician, with a minimum of ten years of experience as Professor in a University system or ten years of experience in an equivalent position in a reputed research and/or academic administrative organization. (ii) The selection of Vice-Chancellor should be through proper identification of a Panel of 3-5 names by a Search Committee through a public Notification or nomination or a talent search process or in combination. The members of the above Search Committee shall be persons of eminence in the sphere of higher education and shall not be connected in any manner with the University concerned or its colleges. While preparing the panel, the search committee must give proper weightage to academic excellence, exposure to the higher education system in the country and abroad, and adequate experience in academic and administrative governance to be given in writing along with the panel to be submitted to the Visitor/Chancellor. In respect of State and Central Universities, the following shall be the constitution of the Search Committee: (a) a nominee of the Visitor/Chancellor, who should be the Chairperson of the Committee. (b) a nominee of the Chairman, University Grants Commission. (c) a nominee of the Syndicate/ Executive Council/Board of Management of the University. (iii) The Visitor/Chancellor shall appoint the Vice-Chancellor out of the Panel of names recommended by the Search Committee (iv) The conditions of service of the Vice-Chancellor shall be prescribed in the Statutes of the Universities concerned in conformity with these Regulations. (v) The term of office of the Vice-Chancellor shall form part of the service period of the incumbent concerned making him/her eligible for all service related benefits. 7.4.0. (v) The term of office of the Vice-Chancellor shall form part of the service period of the incumbent concerned making him/her eligible for all service related benefits. 7.4.0. The Universities/State Governments shall modify or amend the relevant Act/Statutes of the Universities concerned within 6 months of adoption of these Regulations." 26. Letter No. 1-32/2006-U.II/U.I(1)(i) dated 31.12.2008 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Higher Education, New Delhi, has been appended as Appendix 1 and the same is part of the Regulations, 2010. The said letter was on the subject of Scheme of revision of pay of teachers and equivalent cadres in universities and colleges following the revision of pay scales of Central Government employees on the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission (for short, "the Scheme"). Clause 8(p) of the Scheme refers to applicability of the scheme. It will be relevant to quote Clause 8(p)(i), 8(p) (v)(f) and 8(p)(v)(g). They are as follows: "8(p)(i) This Scheme shall be applicable to teachers and other equivalent cadres of Library and Physical Education in all the Central Universities and Colleges there-under and the Institutions Deemed to be Universities whose maintenance expenditure is met by the UGC. The implementation of the revised scales shall be subject to the acceptance of all the conditions mentioned in this letter as well as Regulations to be framed by the UGC in this behalf. Universities implementing this Scheme shall be advised by the UGC to amend their relevant statutes and ordinances in line with the UGC Regulations within three months from the date of issue of this letter. (v) This Scheme may be extended to universities, colleges and other higher educational institutions coming under the purview of State Legislatures, provided State Governments wish to adopt and implement the Scheme subject to the following terms and conditions: 8(p)(v)(f) State Governments, taking into consideration other local conditions, may also decide in their discretion, to introduce scales of pay higher than those mentioned in this Scheme, and may give effect to the revised bands/scales of pay from a date on or after 01.01.2006; however, in such cases, the details of modifications proposed shall be furnished to the Central Government and Central assistance shall be restricted to the Pay Bands as approved by the Central Government and not to any higher scale of pay fixed by the State Government(s). 8(p)(v)(g) Payment of Central assistance for implementing this Scheme is also subject to the condition that the entire Scheme of revision of pay scales, together with all the conditions to be laid down by the UGC by way of Regulations and other guidelines shall be implemented by composite scheme without any modification except in regard to the date of implementation and scales of pay mentioned herein above." 27. The applicability of the scheme, at Clause 8(p)(i), indicates that the same would be applicable to teachers and other equivalent cadres of library and physical education in all Central Universities and colleges thereunder and the institutions deemed to be universities, whose maintenance expenditure is met by the UGC. The implementation of the revised scale shall be subject to the acceptance of all the conditions mentioned in the said letter as well as regulations to be framed by the UGC in that behalf. Clause 8(p)(v) provides that the scheme may be extended to universities, colleges and other higher educational institutions coming under the purview of State Legislatures provided that the State Government wishes to adopt and implement the scheme subject to the terms and conditions as indicated therein from Clause 8(p)(v)(a) to 8(p)(v)(f). Clause 8(p)(v)(f) also empowers the State Governments to decide in their discretion to introduce scales of pay higher than those mentioned in the Scheme and in such cases the details of modifications proposed are to be furnished to the Central Government. Clause 8(p)(v)(g) provides that payment of Central assistance for implementing the Scheme is subject to the condition that the entire Scheme together with all conditions to be laid down by UGC by way of regulations and other guidelines shall be implemented by State Governments and universities and colleges coming under their jurisdiction as a composite scheme without any modification except in regard to the date of implementation and scales of pay mentioned in Clause 8(p)(v)(f). 28. In Kalyani Mathivanan (supra), at paragraphs 35, 56 and 57 it is stated as follows: "35. From the Paras 8(p)(i) and (v) of Appendix I dated 31-12-2008 read with Regulation 7.4.0 we find that the Scheme of regulation is applicable to teaching staffs of all the Central universities and colleges thereunder and the institutions deemed to be universities whose maintenance expenditure is met by the UGC. From the Paras 8(p)(i) and (v) of Appendix I dated 31-12-2008 read with Regulation 7.4.0 we find that the Scheme of regulation is applicable to teaching staffs of all the Central universities and colleges thereunder and the institutions deemed to be universities whose maintenance expenditure is met by the UGC. However, the Scheme under the UGC Regulations, 2010 is not applicable to the teaching staffs of the universities, colleges and other higher educational institutions coming under the purview of the State Legislature, unless the State Government wish to adopt and implement the Scheme subject to terms and conditions mentioned therein. *** *** *** 56. We have noticed and held that the UGC Regulations, 2010 are not applicable to the universities, colleges and other higher educational institutions coming under the purview of the State Legislature unless the State Government wish to adopt and implement the Scheme subject to the terms and conditions therein. In this connection, one may refer to Para 8(p)(v) of Appendix I dated 31-12-2008 and Regulation 7.4.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2010. 57. It is also not the case of the respondents that the Scheme as contained in Appendix I to the Annexure of the UGC Regulations, 2010 has been adopted and implemented by the State Government. It is also apparent from the facts that the University Act has not been amended in terms of the UGC Regulations, 2010 nor was any action taken by the UGC under Section 14 of the UGC Act, 1956 as a consequence of failure of the University to comply with the recommendations of the Commission under Section 14 of the UGC Act, 1956. 29. In paragraph 62.3 and 62.4 of Kalyani Mathivanan (supra), it was further held as follows: "62.3. UGC Regulations, 2010 are mandatory to teachers and other academic staff in all the Central Universities and Colleges thereunder and the Institutions deemed to be Universities whose maintenance expenditure is met by the UGC. 62.4. UGC Regulations, 2010 is directory for the Universities, Colleges and other higher educational institutions under the purview of the State Legislation as the matter has been left to the State Government to adopt and implement the Scheme. Thus, UGC Regulations, 2010 is partly mandatory and is partly directory. 62.5. 62.4. UGC Regulations, 2010 is directory for the Universities, Colleges and other higher educational institutions under the purview of the State Legislation as the matter has been left to the State Government to adopt and implement the Scheme. Thus, UGC Regulations, 2010 is partly mandatory and is partly directory. 62.5. The UGC Regulations, 2010 having not been adopted by the State of Tamil Nadu, the question of conflict between the State Legislation and the Statures framed under the Central Legislation does not arise. Once they are adopted by the State Government, the State Legislation to be amended appropriately. In such case also there shall be no conflict between the State legislation and the Central legislation." 30. Xxx XXX XXX 31. From the above, it is seen that on the basis of Clause 8(p)(i) and (v) of Appendix 1 dated 31.12.2008 read with Regulation 7.4.0, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the Scheme of Regulation is applicable to teaching staff of all the Central Universities and colleges there under and the institutions deemed to be universities whose maintenance expenditure is met by the UGC. However, the Scheme under the Regulations, 2010 is not applicable to the teaching staff of the universities, colleges and higher educational institutions coming under the purview of the State Legislature, unless the State Government wish to adopt and implement the Scheme subject to terms and conditions mentioned therein. It was also held that Regulation 7.3.0 has to be treated as recommendatory in so far as it relates to the universities and colleges under the State Legislation. Once the Regulations, 2010, is adopted by the State Government, the State Legislation has to be amended appropriately. It was also held that in the context of the case under consideration that Regulations, 2010 having not been adopted by the State of Tamil Nadu, the question of conflict between the State Legislature and the Statutes framed under the Central Legislation did not arise. It is, thus, clear that UGC Regulations, 2010 is directory for the universities, colleges and other higher educational institutions under the purview of the State Legislature as the matter has been left to the State Government to adopt and to implement the Scheme. It appears that once the State Government adopts the Scheme, UGC Regulations, 2010 will be mandatorily applicable. It is, thus, clear that UGC Regulations, 2010 is directory for the universities, colleges and other higher educational institutions under the purview of the State Legislature as the matter has been left to the State Government to adopt and to implement the Scheme. It appears that once the State Government adopts the Scheme, UGC Regulations, 2010 will be mandatorily applicable. It is in this context, learned counsel for the parties had laid emphasis on the question as to whether the Scheme was adopted by the State Government or not. 32. We will now consider whether on the basis of the materials on record a finding can be recorded that the Regulations, 2010 had been adopted by the State Government. 33. While reliance is placed on the letter dated 10.08.2010 of the Director of Higher Education, Assam (Annexure-1 to the affidavit of respondent No. 2) by Mr. K. N. Choudhury to contend that the said letter signifies adoption, the counsel for the respondents refute the same. It will be appropriate to reproduce herein below the letter dated 10.08.2010 in its entirety: "GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION, ASSAM KAHILIPARA, GUWAHATI-9 No. (G(B) Misc.65/2009/95 Dated Kahilipara, the 10th August, 2010 From: Dr. B. K. Nath, PhD Director of Higher Education, Assam, Kahilipara, Guwahati-19. To, The Principal,………………….. Sub: Information on Particulars of Institutions/Teachers/Officers for revised UGC/AICTE pay scale, 2010. Ref: Govt. (Finance) letter No. FPC.5/2010/154 dated 11th May, 2010 and This office letter No. G(B) Misc. 65/2009/81, dated 9th June, 2010. Sir, With reference to the subject cited above, I have the honour to state that the UGC, vide their Letter No. F.3-1/2009(PS) dated 23rd Sept, 2009 has issued the regulation to revisit the UGC pay scale in Universities/Colleges and others vide Govt. of Assam, Finance (Pay Research Unit) Department letter No. FOC.5/2010/154 dated 11th May, 2010. However, the UGC issued UGC Regulations, 2010 vide No. F.3-1/2009, dated 30th June, 2010 which come into force with immediate effect. In terms of the above and in supersession of this office letter under reference, it has been necessary to revise and simplify the proforma for expediting process of implementation of UGC Regulations, 2010 extending the benefit of the revised UGC pay scales. In terms of the above and in supersession of this office letter under reference, it has been necessary to revise and simplify the proforma for expediting process of implementation of UGC Regulations, 2010 extending the benefit of the revised UGC pay scales. You are requested to furnish information of individual Teachers/Officers of your College/University/ Polytechnic as per the prescribed format in separate sheets enclosed herewith duly filled in and signed by the Teachers/Officers and certified by you to be submitted in duplicate and also in CD to the undersigned on or before 18th August, 2010. The proforma 1(i), 1(ii), 1(iii), 1(iv), 1(v), 1(vi), 1(vii), 1(viii) and 2, enclosed herewith have replaced the earlier proforma issued by this office vide letter No. G(B) Misc. 65/2009/81 dated 9/06/10 in view of the latest UGC Regulations No. F.3-1/2009 dt. 30th June, 2010 (hereafter referred to as the UGC Regulations, 2010). In particular you are to note that: 1. Placement of the incumbent teachers on 01.01.06 or on the date of joining (for an incumbent joining after 01.01.06) in the revised scheme will be guided by the UGC Regulations, 2010. 2. Fixation of pay of the incumbents on the appropriate stage of the Pay Band will be as per the fitment tables of the MHRD, Govt. of India which have been referred to as the Appendix II in the UGC Regulations, 2010. 3. As per the incentives for PhD/MPhil and other higher qualification, please see the UGC Regulations, 2010. 4. The date of annual increment will be 1st July. 5. The DDOs are to develop an in-house mechanism for verification of information furnished by the incumbents in the proforma with original/authenticated documents and ensure genuineness. 6. DDOs are responsible for all entries made in the proforma. You are requested to ensure that the benefit of Revised UGC/AICTE Pay Scale is extended to all eligible Teachers/Officers under the scheme at an early date. Yours faithfully Enclo: Form 01(i-vii) & Form 02. Director of Higher Education, Assam Kahilipara, Guwahati-19" 34. Adoption of the Regulations by the State Government has to be formal and determinative and it cannot be presumed on the basis of surmises. The date of adoption is very relevant as Clause 7.4.0 mandates the Universities/State Governments to modify or amend the relevant Act/Statutes of the Universities concerned within six months of adoption of the Regulations. Adoption of the Regulations by the State Government has to be formal and determinative and it cannot be presumed on the basis of surmises. The date of adoption is very relevant as Clause 7.4.0 mandates the Universities/State Governments to modify or amend the relevant Act/Statutes of the Universities concerned within six months of adoption of the Regulations. Learned senior counsel for the appellant has not been able to show the date on which the Regulations, 2010 was adopted. In fact, there is not even any averment in the writ petition with regard to adoption of the Regulations, 2010 by the State Government. The letter dated 10.08.2010 of the Director of Higher Education, Assam, only mentions that benefit of revised UGC/AICTE pay scale is to be ensured. The letters dated 11.05.2010 and 09.06.2010 referred to therein are prior to coming into effect of the Regulations, 2010 on 30.06.2010. The letter dated 11.05.2010 indicates that in exercise of powers conferred by proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of Assam was pleased to extend the benefit of revised UGC/AICTE pay scales to the teachers in universities and colleges. Even that letter did not indicate adoption of any previous Regulation of UGC by the State Government. It is also relevant to note that GU Act has not been amended. If the Regulations, 2010 had been adopted, the GU Act had to be amended appropriately. No action was also taken by UGC under Section 14 of the UGC Act as a consequence of any failure of the university to comply with the Regulations, 2010. 34. In the background of the above facts, we are of the considered opinion that in the attending facts and circumstances of the case, the UGC Regulations, 2010 has to be considered as directory for Gauhati University and, therefore, it was not necessary to take recourse to Clause 7.3.0 for the purpose of selection of Vice-Chancellor and the selection of Vice-Chancellor has to be undertaken in terms of Section 8A(1) of the GU Act. 35. It will now be appropriate to reproduce herein below Item No. 31 of the proceedings of the 2nd (Regular) Meeting of 2018 of the Executive Council of the Gauhati University held on 31.03.2018 and 24.04.2018 (Extended) along with the Resolution. 35. It will now be appropriate to reproduce herein below Item No. 31 of the proceedings of the 2nd (Regular) Meeting of 2018 of the Executive Council of the Gauhati University held on 31.03.2018 and 24.04.2018 (Extended) along with the Resolution. The same read as under: "Resolution No. R/EC-01/2018/34 Item No. 31: Matter regarding election of a member by the Executive Council, Gauhati University to the Advisory Board for selection of a new Vice-Chancellor of Gauhati University as per provisions in the Act. (as per Sub-Section (1) of Section 8A of the Gauhati University Act, 1947 (as amended). The Chairman requested the members to give their views and propose the name(s) for the purpose. The Chairman categorically mentioned that members should decide on the matter. Dr. Dharmendra Nath proposed the name of Prof. Dulal Chandra Goswami who is an eminent scholar. While majority of the members supported the proposal of Dr. Nath, Dr. Joyasree Goswami Mahanta suggested that some more time should be given to think over the issue. In response to her suggestion, majority of the members who supported the proposal raised by Dr. Dharmendra Nath decided to nominate the person proposed and opined that if desired by any member, any suggestion/opinion on the matter may be forwarded through email to the Chairman, which will be communicated to all the members for record. Resolution No. R/EC-02/2018/35: Resolved that under Sub-Section (1) of Section 8A of the Gauhati University Act, 1947 (as amended up-to date) Prof. (Retd.) Dulal Chandra Goswami be declared as elected by the Executive council, Gauhati University as one of the members of the Advisory Board for selection of new Vice-Chancellor of Gauhati University as per provisions in the Act." 36. The composition of the Executive Council is already taken note of in the earlier part of the judgement. Suffice it is to say that it is composed of, amongst others, educationists, principals, Deen of faculties, teachers of the university, three nominees of the Chancellor, Government officials, etc. A perusal of the contents of Item No. 31 would go to show that the Chairman of the Executive Council, i.e., the incumbent Vice-Chancellor had categorically indicated that the members should decide on the matter of election of a member by the Executive Council. A perusal of the contents of Item No. 31 would go to show that the Chairman of the Executive Council, i.e., the incumbent Vice-Chancellor had categorically indicated that the members should decide on the matter of election of a member by the Executive Council. It does not indicate that the Vice-Chancellor had taken part in the deliberations with regard to the Agenda Item No. 31 and it refers to support given by majority of the members to the proposal of Dr. Dharmendra Nath, who had proposed the name of respondent No.4, who is referred to as an eminent scholar. 17 members were present in the meetings held 31.03.2018 and 24.04.2018 and, accordingly, the resolution was adopted that the respondent No. 4 was declared elected by the Executive Council. We do not find any merit in the contention advanced by the learned senior counsel for the appellant that the Vice-Chancellor had also used his own e-mail ID for obtaining names for the purpose of election of member, signifying his active part in the selection process. The contents of Item No. 31 are self-explanatory. Resolution had been taken to nominate respondent No. 4, but deferring to the opinion of one member, it was noted that names may be forwarded by members, if so desired, through e-mail to the Chairman, for record. This does not even remotely suggest participation of the Vice-Chancellor in the Agenda Item under consideration. We agree with the submission of Mr. Saikia that it will be wholly unrealistic to assume that without taking any part in deliberations, by his mere presence in the meetings, the Vice-Chancellor could have orchestrated an outcome of his design, more particularly, having regard to the constitution of the Executive Council. 37. Under Section 8B(1) of the GU Act, the Vice-Chancellor is to convene meetings of the Court, the Executive Council, the Academic Council, the Finance Committee and the Construction Committee. He is also the Chairman of the Executive Council, the Academic Council, the Finance Committee and the Construction Committee. The argument of Mr. K. N. Choudhury that the Chancellor could have appointed a temporary Vice-Chancellor is fallacious in absence of any provision empowering the Chancellor to do so. Section 8A(6) of the GU Act lays down situations where Chancellor could make arrangement temporarily for exercising the powers and performing the duties of the Vice-Chancellor for such period as deemed necessary. K. N. Choudhury that the Chancellor could have appointed a temporary Vice-Chancellor is fallacious in absence of any provision empowering the Chancellor to do so. Section 8A(6) of the GU Act lays down situations where Chancellor could make arrangement temporarily for exercising the powers and performing the duties of the Vice-Chancellor for such period as deemed necessary. The question of making such an arrangement arises only if there is any temporary vacancy in the office of the Vice-Chancellor by reason of leave/illness/resignation and in such other cases. 38. In view of the above discussions, we find no merit in this appeal and, accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No cost.